Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2014) 3(3): 291-302
ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 3 Number 3 (2014) pp. 291-302
http://www.ijcmas.com
Original Research Article
Influence of stocking density on growth performance of family chicks
reared up to 18 weeks of age in under an intensive system
Kenaleone Gabanakgosi*, John Cassius Moreki, Shalaulani James Nsoso
and Christopher Mareledi Tsopito
Department of Animal Science and Production, Botswana College of Agriculture,
Private Bag 0027, Gaborone, Botswana
*Corresponding author
ABSTRACT
Keywords
Carcass
characteristics;
family chickens;
growth
parameters;
rearing system;
stocking density.
The objective of the study was to evaluate the influence of stocking density on
growth performance of family chicks reared up to 18 weeks of age under intensive
system. A total of 248 day old chicks were randomly assigned to four stocking
densities D1, D2, D3 and D4 being 10 birds/m2, 13 birds/m2, 16 birds/m2 and 19
birds/m2 in the first phase (0-6 weeks); 8 birds/m2, 11 birds/m2, 14 birds/m2 and 17
birds/m2 in the second phase (7-12 weeks) and lastly 6 birds/m2, 9 birds/m2, 12
birds/m2 and 15 birds/m2 in the third phase (13-18 weeks) due to slaughtering
which occurred at the end of each phase in a completely randomized design. The
number of replicates per treatment was four. Parameters recorded included feed
intake, body weight (BW), body weight gain (BWG), feed conversion ratio (FCR),
mortality, final live weight, dressed weight and dressing percentage. Data were
analysed using the General Linear Model Procedures in Statistical Analysis
System. The growth parameters of family chickens reared in three phases under
intensive system were not significantly (P<0.05) affected by different stocking
densities probably because of slaughtering that occurred at six weekly intervals. A
significant stocking density and age interaction occurred for feed intake (P<0.0002)
and (P<0.0001) in the first and third phases, respectively. These results indicate
that the optimum stocking density for family chickens under intensive system of
management may be 10 birds/m2for first phase, 8 birds/m2 for second phase and 9
birds/m2 for third phase.
Introduction
The significance of stocking density in
broiler production (e.g., production
performance, vitality and health condition
of chickens) was established at the
beginning of development of industrial
poultry production (Skrbi et al., 2009a).
As current recommended densities are
rather variable it is critical if guidelines are
to be established that they be based on
sound science (Estevez, 2007). Stocking
291
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2014) 3(3): 291-302
density has critical implications for the
broiler industry because higher returns can
be obtained as the number of birds per unit
space increases.
stocking densities on performance of
family chickens up to 18 weeks of age
under intensive system.
Materials and Methods
In broiler production, stocking density that
is floor surface per chicken is a very
important welfare factor which directly
and indirectly influences and determines
the level of growth of chicken body weight
(BW) ( krbi et al., 2009b). Profitability
can be realized by efficient management
of floor space. Poultry producers tend to
increase the number of birds per unit of
space in order to reduce housing,
equipment, and labour costs per unit of
space. According to Estevez (2007), the
negative consequences of high stocking
density include reduced final BW, feed
intake and FCR, and greater incidences of
foot-pad dermatitis, scratches, bruising,
poorer feathering and condemnations.
Research consistently indicates that the
health and welfare of broilers is
compromised if space allowances drop
below 0.0625 to 0.07 m2/bird (equivalent
to 34 to 38 kg/m2) depending on final BW
(Estevez, 2007).
Location
The experiment was carried out at
Botswana College of Agriculture (BCA)
Guinea Fowl Unit in Sebele at 24º 33 S,
24º 54 E at an altitude of 994 m above sea
level (Aganga and Omphile, 2000).The
study lasted for 18 weeks from April to
August 2013. An open open-sided poultry
house with concrete floors and roofed with
corrugated iron sheets was used.
Design of the study
A total of 248 day old chicks were
obtained from a local farmer in Gaborone
and reared up to 18 weeks of age under
intensive
system.
A
completely
randomized design (CRD) was employed
in this experiment. Birds were randomly
allocated to four stocking densities
(treatments) with each treatment having
four replicates. The stocking densities
were D1 (10 birds/m2), D2 (13 birds/m2),
D3 (16 birds/m2) and D4 (19 birds/m2) in
the first phase (0-6 weeks). Thereafter,
stocking density was reduced to D1 (8
birds/m2), D2 (11 birds/m2), D3 (14
birds/m2) and D4 (17 birds/m2) in the
second phase (7-12 weeks). and further
reduced to D1 (6 birds/m2), D2 (9
birds/m2), D3 (12 birds/m2) and D4 (15
birds/m2) in the third phase (13-18 weeks).
due to slaughtering which occurred at the
end of each phase. Each rearing phase
lasted for six weeks. Stocking density D1
(10, 8 and 6 birds/m2) served as control.
Stocking density selection was based on
previous studies of Beg et al (2011) and
Tayeb et al (2011) who found stocking
The negative consequences of stocking
density and the quest for profitability
necessitate the evaluation of optimum
density allowances for various species of
poultry, especially family chickens.
Family poultry encompasses the wide
variety of small-scale poultry production
systems found in rural and peri-urban
areas of developing countries (FAO,
2014). Family chickens are usually kept in
places of varying sizes in owners homes
with some chickens being widely spaced
while others are crowded. These varying
stocking densities affect productivity of
family chickens.Therefore, this study was
carried out to investigate the effect of
292
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2014) 3(3): 291-302
density of 10 birds/m2 is to be ideal for
broilers in Bangladesh and Duhok region.
recorded weekly in each replicate using an
electronic balance to the nearest .01g
throughout the experimental period. The
difference between feed given and left
over feeds was used to calculate feed
intake (grams). Performance parameters
measured included average feed intake,
average BW, average BWG, FCR,
mortality, dressed weight and dressing
percentage. Data were calculated using the
formulae given by Djakalia et al (2011):
Experimental birds and their
management
Prior to the start of the experiment all
chicks were individually weighed and
randomly distributed to four groups of
different stocking densities. Each pen was
1 m2. In each treatment, replicate birds
were assigned identification numbers and
then wing banded. The chicks were kept
under deep litter management system in a
house with windows for ventilation. Each
pen was equipped with an electric brooder,
feeder, drinker and an automatic drinker.
Feed intake (FI) is the ratio between the
total quantity of feed consumed (QFC) on
a given period over the number of subjects
fed (NSF) on the same period.
Data collection was done following two
weeks (0-2 weeks of age) of
acclimatization of chicks to experimental
diets. Data were collected from 3 to 18
weeks of age.
Body weight (BW) is the ratio between
total weight of birds (TWB) in a given
flock and the number of birds (NB) of this
flock:
Experimental diets
Birds were fed commercial broiler starter
diet (0 to 6 weeks), commercial broiler
grower diet (7 to 12 weeks) and
commercial broiler finisher diet (13 to 18
weeks). Commercial broiler diets were
obtained from retail shops in Gaborone.
Feed and water were provided ad libitum
throughout the experimental period. Birds
in each replicate were group fed. Feed
intake was measured by giving preweighed feed allocated to each replicate
group throughout the week and then
weighing back all the refusals at the end of
the week. Pen body weights were also
recorded weekly.
Average weight gain (AWG) represents
the difference between the average
weight of the current week (AWc) and
that of the previous week (AWp). It was
determined using the formula, AWG =
AWc Awp
Feed conversion ratio was determined by
dividing total feed intake by total BWG
(Ratsaka et al., 2012). Mortality was
recorded daily and calculated as the ratio
between the number of the dying birds and
the initial total number of birds in the
flock multiplied by 100.
Data collection procedure
At 6, 12 and 18 weeks of age, 2 birds from
Feeds fed to birds and refusals were
293
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2014) 3(3): 291-302
each replicate were randomly selected and
sacrificed by stunning at the BCA
slaughter house and carcass weight
determined using an electronic balance
scale with accuracy 0.001 g.
stocking densities for all phases feed
intake was not significantly different.
However, the highest feed intake was
recorded in D1 (308.71 g) at week 4 in the
first phase; in D1 (601.96 g) at week 8 in
the second phase and in D1 (789.47 g) at
week 18 in the third phase. Stocking
density did not affect average feed intake
because of slaughtering which was done at
the end of each phase. In agreement
Feddes et al (2002) found that birds reared
at 11.9 birds/m2 stocking density
consumed the least feed (2,993 g/bird)
compared to those at 14.3 birds/m2 which
consumed most feed (3,183 g/bird). These
results are in disagreement with Iyasere et
al (2012) who found that increased
stocking density reduces feed intake.
Similarly, Tong et al (2012) observed that
under three stocking densities (12.5, 17.5
and 22.5 birds/m2) feed intake decreased
significantly in each period as stocking
density increased. On the contrary,
Nahashon et al (2009) observed
significantly higher feed intake in birds
raised at stocking density of 10.7
birds/m2compared to 15.6, 13.6, and 12
birds/m2. In this study, significant stocking
density and age interaction occurred for
feed intake (P<0.0002) and (P<0.0001) in
the first and third phases, respectively. The
current results indicate that feed intake
declined with increased stocking density.
Anon (2013) attributed the decline in feed
intake to restricted access to the feed,
increased heat stress and increased
ammonia level which occurs under heavily
stocked birds. Also, the physical access to
feeders is probably limited due to
increased stocking density, as well as, the
competition between birds to get to the
feeder (Abudabos et al., 2013).
Statistical analysis
A General Linear Model (GLM) procedure
of Statistical Analysis Systems SAS (9.1)
Inc. (2002-2003) was used to estimate the
differences between treatment means for
different stocking densities. Dunnett s
mean test was used to separate Least
Square Means. Significance was declared
at P<0.05. The following model was used:
Statistical model: Y = +
ijk
+
i
+
j
+ ( )ij
ijk
Where: yijk=Response variable from ith
experimental unit (eu) with jth treatment
µ = General mean effect
i
= ith Stocking density s effects on family
chickens growth
j=j
th
age effects on family chickens
growth
( )ij= ijth stocking density and age
interaction
ijk
= Error ijktheu ~N(0,
2
)
Results and Discussion
Feed intake
Feed intake in the second phase did not
vary across the rearing period while it
significantly increased with the rearing
period in all densities in the first and third
phases (Tables 1 to 3). Among the
Body weight and body weight gain
Body weight increased significantly
(P<0.05) over time in all the phases
294
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2014) 3(3): 291-302
(Tables1 to 3). However, BW in all phases
was not affected by stocking density due
to slaughtering which occurred at the end
of each phase. The highest BW was
recorded in D1 (409.75 g) at week 6 in the
first phase; in D1 (1269.40 g) at week 12
in the second phase and in D2 (2033.20 g)
at week 18 in the third phase. The result
on BW is in agreement with Dozier et al.
(2006) and Sekeroglu et al (2011) who
found a significant effect of stocking
density on BW of broilers. However, the
current finding is in disagreement with ElDeek and Ai-Harthi (2004) and Tayeb et
al (2011) who found no influence of
stocking density on BW of broiler chicks.
No stocking density x age interaction for
BW in all the phases was found in this
study indicating that the influence of
stocking density did not vary for BW. In
this study, stocking density of 9 birds/m2
showed better performance in achieving
the final market weight because of high
feed intake as access to the feed and water
was not restricted. Generally, no
significant difference was observed in
BWG of chickens in all the phases (Tables
1 to 3). The highest BWG was recorded in
D2 (164.17 g) at week 6 in the first phase;
in D1 (1269.40 g) at week 10 in the second
phase and in D2 (352.10 g) at week 18 in
the third phase.
stocking density and age interaction for
BWG was observed in all the rearing
phases in this study.
Feed conversion ratio
There was no variation observed in FCR
for family chickens in all the phases
(Tables 1 to 3). The highest FCR was
recorded in D2 (4.63) at week 4 in the first
phase; in D3 (2.49) at week 12 in the
second phase and in D1 (3.84) at week 14
in the third phase. This indicates that
chickens in the above stocking densities
are poor converters of feeds to meat,
probably because they have not been
selected for faster growth rate. Nahashon
et al (2009) observed significantly lower
FCR in birds raised in floor densities of
13.6 and 12 birds/m2 than those raised on
floor densities of 15.6 and 10.7 birds/m2.
Similarly, Sekeroglu et al (2011) found
that birds reared at 17 birds/m2 had better
FCR than those reared at 9 and 13
birds/m2 groups at 21-42 days. The current
results are in agreement with Sreehari and
Sharma (2010) who reported that birds of
lower density groups have a chance to
consume more feed which is a waste
because they cannot convert it into meat
and are unable to show better FCR value.
The authors also found that FCR between
stocking density groups was not
significant between 0-21 and 0-42 days
but was significant at 21-42 days of age. In
this study, a significant stocking density
and age interaction occurred for FCR
(P<0.0395) in the third phase indicating
that the influence of stocking density
varied for FCR during the third phase.
The current result is consistent with
Iyasere et al (2012) who reported that
increased stocking density reduces BWG
of the birds. Sekeroglu et al (2011) raised
Ross 308 broilers under three stocking
densities (9, 13 and 17 birds/m2) and
observed that BWG at density of 13
birds/m2 was higher than that of other two
stocking densities during the 2nd and 3rd
weeks of age. The authors also found that
birds reared at stocking density of 17
birds/m2 had the lowest BWG of all the
three groups (9, 13 and 17 birds/m2)
during the 4th, 5th and 6th weeks. No
Mortality
Stocking density did not affect mortality.
In the first phase mortality occurred in D1
at week 4 and 6 (0.22±0.11 % each) and
D2 at week 6 (0.33±0.11 %).
295
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2014) 3(3): 291-302
Table.1 Means and standard errors of growth parameters of family chickens reared up to 6
weeks of age under intensive system
Parameter
Feed intake (g)
Density Age (weeks)
10
13
3
4
6
SE
79.58ax
109.07a
308.71ay
236.29by
185.97az
222.98ab
14.12
Significance of effect (P)
Density
Age
Intera
ction
0.3175
0.0001
0.0002
10.59
0.0727
0.0001
0.1940
8.017182
14.87
0.4016
0.0001
0.2108
25.3701
8
0.58
0.3224
0.0001
0.2601
x
16
19
Body weight (g)
10
CV
14.46373
y
ax
by
99.43
121.84a
221.61
262.70ab
252.86by
241.30ab
x
y
y
153.78a
269.03ay
409.75az
227.33ay
391.49az
243.36ay
395.60az
235.63ay
369.48az
x
13
153.57a
x
16
156.78a
x
19
164.32a
x
Body Weight
Gain (g)
FCR
10
-
115.25ax
140.73ax
13
16
19
-
73.76ax
86.58ax
71.32ax
164.17ay
152.24ay
133.85ay
10
13
16
19
-
2.83ax
4.63ax
2.60ax
3.71ax
1.36ax
1.39ay
1.67ax
1.83ay
ab
46.69058
Means in the same column within a parameter with different superscripts differ
significantly;
xy
Means in the same row within a parameter with different superscripts differ significantly
P<0.05.
FCR=Feed Conversion Ratio; CV= Cumulative Frequency and SE= Standard error.
296
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2014) 3(3): 291-302
Table.2 Means and standard errors of growth parameters of family chickens reared from
8 to 12 weeks of age under intensive system
Parameter
Feed
intake (g)
Density
Age (weeks)
8
11
8
10
601.96a
564.66a
x
x
470.60b
502.89a
x
x
b
14
17
Body
weight (g)
8
11
14
17
Body
Weight
Gain (g)
8
11
14
17
FCR
8
12
34.55
553.65ax
513.05ax
471.37
553.44a
x
x
459.96b
584.04a
x
x
545.74ax
674.27a
999.35a
1269.40
x
y
az
639.06a
936.95a
1195.48
x
y
az
645.80
a
x
634.27
958.41
a
y
a
955.17
SE
Significance of effect (P)
Densi
Interactio
Age
ty
n
0.064 0.1162
0.3150
9
CV
13.0319
7
541.02ax
37.66
0.204
6
0.0001
0.9868
8.014930
26.43
0.684
2
0.0016
0.9441
19.41427
0.21
0.628
1
0.0159
0.3668
20.35758
1178.71
az
a
1189.77
x
y
az
264.52a
325.08a
x
x
247.56a
297.90a
x
x
250.20a
312.61a
x
x
264.79a
320.90a
x
x
234.60ax
2.41ax
1.76ax
2.06ax
270.05ax
258.51ax
220.30ax
11
1.96ax
1.71ax
2.02ax
14
1.95ax
1.85ax
2.49ax
17
1.84ax
1.83ax
2.34ax
ab
Means in the same column within a parameter with different superscripts differ significantly;
xy
Means in the same row within a parameter with different superscripts differ significantly;P<0.05.
FCR=Feed Conversion Ratio; CV= Cumulative Frequency and SE= Standard error.
297
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2014) 3(3): 291-302
Table.3 Means and standard errors of growth parameters of family chickens reared from 14
to 18 weeks of age under intensive system
Parameter
Density
Age (weeks)
14
Feed
intake
(g)
Body
weight
(g)
Body
Weight
Gain (g)
FCR
6
690.47ax
9
647.55ax
16
Significance of effect (P)
18
435.63a
y
789.47az
525.08a
614.37bx
y
y
431.09
a
12
434.77bxy
15
452.32bx
6
1476.75ax
1708.4
9axy
1920.07
9
1428.25ax
2033.20
12
1452.72ax
15
1487.70ax
1681.1
0axy
1643.6
4axy
1675.3
6axy
6
207.35ax
9
232.78ax
12
274.02ax
15
297.93ax
6
3.84ax
x
429.55a
x
231.75a
x
252.85a
x
190.92a
x
187.66a
SE
27.34
Densit
y
0.000
1
Interact
ion
0.000 00.0001
1
Age
CV
9.89565
9
543.34by
637.79by
ay
76.76
0.741
6
44.34
0.318
8
0.137
1
0.8449
9.10021
3
0.461
5
0.2587
37.2366
6
0.038
3
0.0395
38.1773
8
0.000
1
az
1848.69
ay
1889.14
ay
211.58ax
352.10bx
205.05ax
x
213.77ax
1.93ax
3.87ax
0.50
9
2.82abx
2.09ax
2.24ax
12
1.60bx
2.40ax
3.25ax
15
1.56bx
2.53ax
3.20ax
ab
Means in the same column within a parameter with different superscripts differ significantly;
xy
Means in the same row within a parameter with different superscripts differ significantly;P<0.05.
FCR=Feed Conversion Ratio; CV= Cumulative Frequency and SE= Standard error.
298
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2014) 3(3): 291-302
Table.4 Mean carcass characteristics and live weight of family
chickens slaughtered at 6 weeks
Parameter
Live weight (g)
Dressed weight
(g)
Density
Age
(weeks)
6
Significance of effect (P)
496.63a
463.88a
483.25a
465.50a
10
13
16
19
10
285.75a
SE
Treatment
CV
27.33
0.8073
11.45082
18.24
0.8164
268.75a
284.63a
266.50a
57.50a
0.81
0.4933
Dressing (%)
57.75a
16
58.88a
19
57.15a
ab
Means in the same column within a parameter with different superscripts differ
significantly;P<0.05.; CV= Cumulative Frequency and SE= Standard error.
13
16
19
10
13
13.20156
2.799843
Table.5 Mean carcass characteristics and live weight of family chickens
laughtered at 12 weeks
Parameter
Density
Age
(weeks)
12
Significance of effect (P)
SE
Treatment
CV
Live weight (g)
8
11
14
17
1594.63a
1656.38a
1598.88a
1524.50a
76.28
0.6887
9.573201
Dressed weight (g)
8
11
14
17
8
974.05a
913.525a
1079.38a
1040.68a
61.15a
55.80a
52.15
0.3878
10.40969
2.95
0.0350
9.322359
Dressing (%)
11
14
67.55b
17
68.28b
ab
Means in the same column within a parameter with different superscripts differ
significantly;P<0.05.; CV= Cumulative Frequency and SE= Standard error.
299
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2014) 3(3): 291-302
Table 6: Mean carcass characteristics and live weight of family chickens slaughtered at 18 weeks
Parameter
Density
Age (weeks)
Significance of effect (P)
18
SE
Treatment
CV
Live weight (g)
6
9
12
15
2319.38a
2540.25a
2436.88a
2351.25a
81.75
0.2739
6.778734
Dressed weight (g)
6
9
1605.13a
1765.75a
72.88
0.4094
8.656268
12
1725.13a
15
1639.25a
69.20a
1.07
0.7437
69.43a
70.75a
69.63a
ab
Means in the same column within a parameter with different superscripts differ
significantly;P<0.05.; CV= Cumulative Frequency and SE= Standard error.
3.057189
Dressing (%)
6
9
12
15
The highest mortality was recorded in the
third phase at week 16 in stocking density
D4 at week 16 (0.52±0.18 %). This may be
overcrowded. This finding on mortality is
consistent with Feddes et al (2002) who
found that stocking density had no effect
on mortality. In agreement with Beg et al
(2011) no significant (P<0.4100) stocking
density and age interaction was observed
for mortality in this study.
due to pecking which occurred as birds
were
birds under stocking density D3 (12
birds/m2) was significantly higher under
four stocking densities (8, 10, 12 and 14
bird/m2) at 6 weeks of age. In contrast,
Tayeb et al (2011) found no significant
effect of stocking density on carcass
weight under three stocking densities
(8.66, 10.41 and 13.36 birds/m²).
Carcass characteristics and live weight
In this study, the highest dressed weight
was recorded in D3 (2496.63 g) at week 6
in the first phase; in D3 (1079.38 g) at
week 12 in the second phase and in D2
(1765.75 g) at week 18 in the third phase.
In contrast, Beg et al (2011) found that
dressing percentage of birds on D1 (8
birds/m2) and D2 (10 birds/m2) stocking
densities was significantly (P<0.05) higher
compared to D3 (12 birds/m2) and D4 (14
birds/m2) stocking densities. The authors
All carcass characteristics were not
affected by stocking density in all the
phases (Tables 4 to 6). The highest live
weight was recorded in D1 (496.63 g) at
week 6 in the first phase; in D2 (1656.38
g) at week 12 in the second phase and in
D2 (2540.25 g) at week 18 in the third
phase. The current result is in contrast to
Beg et al (2011) who reported that the
average live weight of Cobb-500 broiler
300
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2014) 3(3): 291-302
concluded that lower stocking density
resulted in higher dressing percentage.
growth for broilers and higher yield of
processed carcass. Also, low stocking
density
allows
for
better
body
development and carcass conformation
(Skrbic et al., 2009a).The highest dressing
percentage was recorded in D3 (58.88 %)
at week 6 in the first phase; in D4 (68.28
%) at week 12 in the second phase and in
D3 (70.75 %) at week 18 in the third
phase. The present results are in
disagreement with Sekeroglu et al (2011)
who reported no influence of stocking
density on carcass yield. Similarly, Tayeb
et al (2011) reported no significant effect
of different stocking density on carcass
weight and dressing percentage of broiler
chickens.
According to Skrbic et al. (2008), low
stocking density provides more intensive
Botswana.Government
Printers,
Gaborone.
Beg, M.A.H., Baqui, M.A., Sarker, N.R.
and Hossain, M.M. 2011. Effect of
Stocking Density and Feeding Regime
on Performance of Broiler Chicken in
Summer Season. International Journal
of Poultry Science,10 (5): 365-375.
Beloor, J., Kang, H.K., Kim, Y.J.,
Subramani, V.K., Jang, I.S., Sohn,
S.H. and Moon, Y.S. 2010. The effect
of stocking density on stress related
genes and telomeric length in broiler
chickens. Australasian Journal of
Animal Sciences, 23 (4): 437 443.
Djakalia, B., Guichard, B.L. and
Soumaila, D. 2011. Effect of Moringa
oleifera on growth performance and
health status of young post-weaning
rabbits. Research Journal of Poultry
Sciences, 4 (1):7-13.
Dozier III, W.A., Thaxton, J.P., Purswell,
J.L., Olanrewaju, H.A., Branton, S.L.
and Roush, W.B.2006. Production,
modeling, and education stocking
density effects on male broilers grown
to 1.8 kilograms of body weight,
Poultry Science, 85: 344 351.
El-Deek, A.A. and Al-Harthi, M.A. 2004.
Responses of modern broiler chicks to
stocking
density,
green
tea,
commercial multi enzymes and their
interactions
on
productive
performance, carcass characteristics,
liver
composition
and
plasma
constituents. International Journal of
Poultry Science, 3: 635-645.
Estevez, I. 2007. Density allowances for
broilers: where to set the limits?
Poultry Science, 86: 1265 1272.
FAO, 2014. Family poultry development
Issues, opportunities and constraints.
Animal Production and Health
working paper No. 12. Rome.
The growth parameters of family chickens
reared under intensive system were not
significantly affected by the different
stocking densities probably due to the
slaughtering that occurred at 6, 12 and 18
weeks of age. Stocking density of 10
birds/m2 for the first phase (1-6 weeks), 8
birds/m2 for the second phase (7-12 weeks)
and 9 birds/m2 for the third phase (13-18
weeks) had better performance for almost
all growth parameters. The current results
suggest that the optimum stocking density
for family chickens reared under intensive
system may be 10 birds/m2 for the first
phase, 8 birds/m2 for the second phase and
9 birds/m2 for the third phase.
References
Anon., 2013. Factors affecting feed intake
of
chickens.
Retrieved
from
http://www.worldpoultry.net/Broilers/
Nutrition/2013/3/Factors-affectingfeed-intake-of-chickens-1172230W/
Aganga, A.A. and Omphile, C.H. 2000.
Forage
resources
of
301
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2014) 3(3): 291-302
Feddes, J.J.R., Emmanuel, E.J. and
Zuidhof,
M.J.
2002.Broiler
performance, body weight variance,
feed and water intake, and carcass
quality at different stocking densities.
Poultry Science, 81: 774 779.
Iyasere, O.S., Daramola, J.O., Bemji,
M.N., Adeleye, O.O., Sobayo, R.A.,
Iyasere, E. and Onagbesan, O.M. 2012.
Effects of stocking density and air
velocity on behaviour and performance
of Anak broiler chickens in SouthWestern Nigeria. International Journal
of Applied Animal Science, 1(2):52-56.
Nahashon, S.N., Adefope, N., Amenyenu,
A., Tyus II, J. and Wright, D. 2009.
The effect of floor density on growth
performance
and
carcass
characteristics of French guinea
broilers. Poultry Science, 88: 2461
2467.
Ratsaka, M., Ngambi, J.W. and Ndlovu,
L.R. 2012. Effect of potable cage
rearing system and stocking density on
growth, feed intake and carcass
characteristics of Ross 308 broiler
chickens. Journal of Animal Science
Advances, 2 (Suppl. 3.2): 312-320.
Sekeroglu, A., Sarica, M., Gulay, S.M. and
Duman, M. 2011. Effect of stocking
density on chick performance, internal
organ weights and blood parameters in
broilers. Journal of Animal and
Veterinary Advances 10 (2): 246-250.
Sreehari, S.and Sharma, R.K. 2010. Effect
of litter type and stocking density on
the performance of broilers. Indian
Journal of Poultry Science, 1 (45):
105-107.
krbi , Z., Pavlovski, Z., Luki , M., Peri ,
L. and Milo evi , N. 2009a. The effect
of stocking density on certain broiler
welfare parameters. Biotechnology in
Animal Husbandry, 25 (1-2): 11-21.
krbi , Z., Pavlovski, Z. and Luki ,
M.2009b. Stocking density factor of
production performance, quality and
broiler welfare. Biotechnology in
Animal Husbandry, 25(5-6): 359-372.
Skrbic, Z., Pavlovski, Z., Lukic, M., Peric,
L. and. Blagojevic, M. 2008. Carcass
quality of broilers reared in lower
stocking density and in conditions of
discontinuous
light
program.
Proceedings of the 1st Mediterranean
Summit of World's Poultry Science
Association, May 7-10, 2008, Porto
Carras, Greece, pp: 1028-1032.
Tayeb, I.T., Hassan, S,N., Mustafa, M.M.,
Sadeq, S.A.M., Ameen, G,I. and
Hassan, A.M. 2011. Effects of various
stocking density on productive
performance and some physiological
traits of broiler chicks. Research
Opinions in Animal and Veterinary
Sciences, 1(2): 89-93.
Tong, H.B., Lu, J., Zou, J.M., Wang, Q.
and Shi, S.R. 2012. Effects of stocking
density on growth performance,
carcass yield, and immune status of a
local chicken breed. Poultry Science,
91: 667 673.
302